Cited by 91Emotions and Moral BehaviorChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The effect of self-distancing on adaptive versus maladaptive self-reflection in children.

Kross, Ethan, Duckworth, Angela, Ayduk, Ozlem, Tsukayama, Eli, Mischel, Walter·2011·Emotion

Abstract

Although children and adolescents vary in their chronic tendencies to adaptively versus maladaptively reflect over negative feelings, the psychological mechanisms underlying these different types of self-reflection among youngsters are unknown. We addressed this issue in the present research by examining the role that self-distancing plays in distinguishing adaptive versus maladaptive self-reflection among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse sample of fifth-grade public schoolchildren. Children were randomly assigned to analyze their feelings surrounding a recent anger-related interpersonal experience from either a self-immersed or self-distanced perspective. They then rated their negative affect and described in writing the stream of thoughts they experienced when they analyzed their feelings. Children's stream-of-thought essays were content analyzed for the presence of recounting statements, reconstruing statements, and blame attributions. Path analyses indicated that children who analyzed their feelings from a self-distanced perspective focused significantly less on recounting the "hot," emotionally arousing features of their memory (i.e., what happened to me?) and relatively more on reconstruing their experience. This shift in thought content--less recounting and more reconstruing--led children in the self-distanced group to blame the other person involved in their recalled experience significantly less, which in turn led them to display significantly lower levels of emotional reactivity. These findings help delineate the psychological mechanisms that distinguish adaptive versus maladaptive forms of self-reflection over anger experiences in children. Their basic findings and clinical implications are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0021787

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kross, E., Duckworth, A., Ayduk, O., Tsukayama, E., & Mischel, W.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Venue
Emotion
Published
2011
Volume
11
Issue
5
Pages
1032-1039
ISSN
  • 1528-3542 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1516
OpenAlex
W2063807312
Cited by
91
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Emotion (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
self-distancing, self-reflection, children, anger, negative affect, emotional reactivity, blame attribution, memory reconstruction, stream of consciousness, self-immersion
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Child, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Models, Psychological, Self Concept, Thinking, Emotional Intelligence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review